11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance, which may require a creditor to investigate warning signs in light of the creditor’s experience and circumstances.

In re: Jon W. Chaffee · filed 2017-03-17(a)(2)(A)

In some cases, justifiable reliance requires the creditor to investigate somewhat. ... In sum, the bankruptcy court properly found that Yim failed to prove the fourth element of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove common law fraud by a preponderance of the evidence to except a debt from discharge.

Bernacchi v. Cascio (In re Cascio) · filed 2017-04-04(a)(2)(A)

For the alleged debt to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), the Plaintiff must establish the traditional elements of common law fraud by a preponderance of the evidence. ... The testimony at trial does not establish that the Debtor fraudulently represented that he would share the cost and ownership of the home, or that the Plaintiff justifiably relied on any such representations by the Debtor. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence in this case does not establish the elements of common law fraud, and the Plaintiffs claim is not excepted from the Debtor’s discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to obtain money, property, services, or credit through fraud; a debt arising from fraud alone does not qualify.

Oasis, Inc. v. Fiorillo · filed 2017-03-30(a)(2)(A)

Here, Fiorillo did not “obtain” “money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit” by fraud or a false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance when an actual fraud claim is based on inducement.

Lenchner v. Korn (In re Korn) · filed 2017-04-14(a)(2)(A)

This Court concludes that even after the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Husky, justifiable reliance by the creditor is a necessary element of “actual fraud” under § 523(a)(2)(A), when the form of fraud is what Husky referred to as “inducement-based fraud.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for money obtained by actual fraud from discharge only to the extent the creditor’s reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentations was justifiable.

McClammer v. Holmes (In re Holmes) · filed 2017-05-04(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, whatever amount the state court determines Landon received from her on or before January 15, 2014 is nondischargeable as a debt obtained by actual fraud pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a debtor to personally receive or benefit from fraudulently transferred money for a resulting debt to be nondischargeable.

Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz (In re Ritz) · filed 2017-04-19(a)(2)(A)

This Court is bound by Fifth Circuit precedent, and therefore does not need to make a finding that the Debtor directly received the $1,161,279.90 that he transferred out of Chrysalis’s account; or, alternatively, make a finding that he indirectly benefitted from his transferring these monies out of Chrysalis’s account. Rather, this Court need only make a finding the $1,161,279.90 transferred from Chrysalis’s account to the accounts of the Debtor-Controlled Entities was done fraudulently by the Debtor — and this, the Court has already done.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on broken promises that were not false representations made with intent to deceive.

Grover v. McDougal (In re McDougal) · filed 2017-08-02(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) provides three grounds for holding a debt to be non-dischargeable: false pretenses, false representations and actual fraud. ... The court finds from the evidence heard at trial that McDougal made several promises, not false representations of fact with intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from a debtor’s knowing participation in a fraudulent property transfer nondischargeable, even without a false representation.

Rodriguez v. Siverio · filed 2017-05-30(a)(2)(A)

Defendant-Debtor’s receipt of the transfer of property was, therefore, obtained by knowingly participating in the fraudulent transaction of purporting to transfer and register the title to the property without the participation of the property’s true owner. As a result, the debt incurred by Defendant-Debtor when the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico adjudged her liable to Plaintiff for $45,000 is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from actual fraud, including an indirect transfer that depletes the value of a debtor’s wholly owned corporation to the detriment of creditors.

Dz Bank Ag Deutsche Zentral v. Meyer · filed 2017-07-11(a)(2)(A)

Like other courts, we find this is sufficient to constitute “actual fraud” for the purposes of WUFTA and § 523(a)(2)(A). The amount of the non-dischargeable debt resulting from Meyer’s fraudulent transfer is $385,000, which DZ Bank is entitled to recover.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except fraudulently obtained credit from discharge even if the debtor intended to repay the loan.

Hernandez v. General Mills Federal Credit · filed 2017-06-14(a)(2)(A)

A borrower who fraudulently obtains credit is not taken out of that provision simply because she intends to repay the loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) except debts resulting from fraud from discharge; neither exception applies when the creditor fails to establish fraud.

O'Grady v. Birenbaum · filed 2017-06-20(a)(2)(A) & (B)

After hearing the testimony of three witnesses—the doctors themselves and Dr. Birenbaum’s accountant—over three days, the bankruptcy court found that neither exception applied to bar discharge. ... Upon careful review of the record, the findings of the bankruptcy court, the applicable law, and the arguments of the parties, we detect no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s rejection of Dr. O’Grady’s claims. For that reason, we affirm the judgment of the district court, which in turn affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to know a representation was false when made; a bank’s later change of position does not make an accurate statement of its earlier intent fraudulent.

Conestoga Title Insurance Co. v. Patchell (In re Patchell) · filed 2017-06-23(a)(2)(A)

Cecil Bank’s subsequent, arbitrary change of position ultimately undercut the agreement Ms. Feltman memorialized in the email. Nevertheless, it would be terribly wrong to find that Ms. Patchell “knew of the falsity” of the representation that embodied the agreement at the time it was made. That is so because the statement was an accurate reflection of Cecil Bank’s intention at the time.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt nondischargeable when a debtor’s misrepresentations cause a creditor to delay collection, extending existing credit.

California Bank & Trust v. Licursi (In re Licursi) · filed 2017-07-12(a)(2)(A)

But it also applies if the action of the creditor is to forebear in its collection of the debt. This, too, can be seen as an extension of credit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts arising from fraudulent representations nondischargeable; knowledge and intent to deceive may be established through circumstantial evidence.

Garlock v. Thomas · filed 2017-07-31(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Bruñe and Thomas established the elements of fraud under section 523(a)(2)(A) with respect to the loan-term issue was not clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because a debtor failed to volunteer financial information the creditor did not request.

Oman Family Trust ex rel. Oman v. Hilsman (In re Hilsman) · filed 2017-08-09(a)(2)(A)

In this case, there was no evidence that Oman asked about Hilsman’s or Pilot’s financial condition or that Hilsman voluntarily provided any financial information that was false. Accordingly, the failure of Hilsman to disclose information on his or Phot’s financial condition does not support a claim under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor makes a promise without intending to perform it and the creditor justifiably relies on that promise and suffers harm.

Whitcomb v. Smith (Smith) · filed 2017-09-06(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s judgment as to § 523(a)(2)(A) is affirmed. Because we affirm the bankruptcy court’s determination that Ms. Smith’s obligation to the Whit-combs is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A), we need not address its holding that her obligation is also excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor lacked intent to repay when the debt was incurred or the promise was made; a broken promise alone is insufficient.

Wynn Las Vegas, LLC. v. Anandani (In re Anandani) · filed 2017-09-11(a)(2)(A)

It is well established that evidence of a broken promise to pay a debt, without more, will not satisfy a creditor’s burden of proof under section 523(a)(2)(A). Otherwise, every debt based on breach of contract would be rendered nondischargeable. Giquinto, 388 B.R. at 166. Instead, section 523(a)(2)(A) requires that the creditor show the existence of scienter, which means that the creditor must establish that at the time the debt was incurred, or the promise was made, there existed no intent on the part of the debtor to repay the obligation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a preapproved loan from discharge when the lender fails to prove false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

Acceptance Loan Co. v. Christopher (In re Christopher) · filed 2017-09-15(a)(2)(A)

Because this Court finds in favor of Debtor on the first three elements of actual fraud, an analysis of the last two elements regarding justifiable reliance and sustained loss due to misrepresentations is unwarranted. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof that Debtor engaged in fraud in accepting the pre-ap-proved extension of credit and thus is not entitled to an award of nondischargeability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) on the debts owed to it by Debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud in obtaining a loan; a later failure to repay does not suffice.

Sloan v. Allen (In re Allen) · filed 2017-09-21(a)(2)(A)

To recapitulate, although Men reneged on his promise to repay the loan, Sloan has not shown that Men falsely represented an intention of repaying the loan when he borrowed the money, or falsely represented an intention of honoring the equity interest he had promised the Sloans (if they elected to convert the loan to an equity interest), or made any other misrepresentation in obtaining the loan from the Sloans. Accordingly, Sloan has failed to show that the debt owed the Sloans is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a debt alleged to arise from actual fraud to be traceable to that fraud; a debt incurred before a fraudulent transfer scheme is not obtained by the scheme.

RES-GA Diamond Meadows, LLC v. Robertson (In re Robertson) · filed 2017-09-28(a)(2)(A)

First, RGDM has failed to show how the claim is traceable to the alleged fraudulent transfer scheme. The undisputed facts show that Robertson’s personal debt, originally owed to FirstCity, was created through an agreement to guarantee a loan. As a result, the debt at issue here existed prior to Robertson’s scheme to fraudulently transfer property and is not a debt “obtained by” actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a fraudulent transfer debt from discharge, but it does not itself create a right to recover the transfer.

Browne v. Lombard (In re Lombard) · filed 2017-09-29(a)(2)(A)

Neither Husky nor Lawson—either explicitly or by implication—turn § 523(a)(2)(A) into a cause of action by which a creditor may recover a fraudulent transfer from a debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge based on a fraudulent transfer only if the debt is traceable to the transfer.

Prado v. Erickson (In re Erickson) · filed 2017-09-29(a)(2)(A)

Since there is no connection between the debt and the transfers, the debt cannot be excepted from the discharge on this basis, and the summary judgment motion is granted to this extent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a continuing representation clause as turning a statement that was true when made into a false representation or creating an independent duty to disclose.

Brookfield Global Relocation Services, LLC v. Burnley (In re Burnley) · filed 2017-10-02(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that for purposes of a § 523(a)(2)(A) cause of action, a continuing representation contract provision cannot render a representation that is true when made an express false representation or trigger an independent duty to disclose.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence that the debtor intended to defraud; negligence alone does not establish that intent.

Holzhueter v. Groth (In re Holzhueter) · filed 2017-10-18(a)(2)(A)

But mere negligence is not “sufficient basis, for deceit.” ... Defendants have failed to produce evidence that would suggest there is a genuine dispute over whether Plaintiff had the requisite intent under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor establishes the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Parklex Associates v. Deutsch (In re Deutsch) · filed 2017-10-18(a)(2)(A)

Applying these legal principles, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied the elements of collateral estoppel, and that the factual allegations set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint in the State Court Action establish the elements necessary to find that Deutsch misrepresented and defrauded the Plaintiff under section 523(a)(2)(A), and committed fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity under section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from intentional fraud through concealment and deceit, even without a false representation.

Hiner v. Koukhtiev (In re Koukhtiev) · filed 2017-11-17(a)(2)(A)

This conduct unequivocally shows that he intended, through non-disclosure and deceit, to deprive the Plaintiff of the proceeds from the sales of the Soft Way Program. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor’s conduct falls within the expansive definition of “actual fraud” set forth in Husky, the Debt- or’s conduct involved sufficient concealment and deceit to comprise actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a creditor's reliance on a debtor's misrepresentation to be justifiable despite carelessness when no warning signs call for further investigation.

Lujan v. Davide (In re Davide) · filed 2017-12-11(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that Lujan’s reliance on Davide’s misrepresentations was justifiable. Lujan was foolish to take Davide at her word, but there is nothing in the record that appears to be a “red flag.” It may not have been objectively reasonable to rely on Davide’s word alone, but under the low standard discussed above, it was subjectively justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained through false pretenses or misrepresentation from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on the deception and suffered a resulting loss.

Lansden v. Jones (In re Jones) · filed 2018-01-26(a)(2)(A)

In summary, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof that they are entitled to a determination of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) as to any outstanding amounts attributable to the ARMACO Inventory but have not met their burden of proof with respect to the FTZ Inventory.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s actual-fraud exception requires fraudulent intent; negligence or recklessness alone does not suffice.

Hatfield v. Thompson (In re Thompson) · filed 2017-12-21(a)(2)(A)

But, even if Thompson's actions or inactions can be considered negligent or reckless, they do not rise to the level of fraudulent conduct without the intent to deceive or to take unfair advantage of or cheat someone. The Court concludes, based on the totality of the evidence before it, that Thompson did not possess the requisite fraudulent intent required by Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove that the debtor made the false representation before a debt can be excepted from discharge on that ground.

Phillips 66 Co. v. Miltenberger (In re Hudson-Miltenberger) · filed 2018-01-26(a)(2)(A)

Although there is no doubt that Melissa's signature on the Guaranty was forged, it is unclear who forged the signature. Thus, in this case the Court has insufficient evidence to conclude that Debtor made the false representation failing to prove the first element under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts an entire arbitration award from discharge when the arbitrator’s findings establish that the debt arose from fraudulent nondisclosure.

Portal Invs., LLC v. Johnson (In re Johnson) · filed 2018-01-29(a)(2)(A)

The findings and conclusions in the JAMS Arbitration interim orders and Corrected Final Order and Award satisfy the elements of section 523(a)(2)(A) and the entire arbitration award is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not prevent discharge when the creditor fails to prove its elements.

Yim v. Chaffee (In Re Chaffee) · filed 2018-02-23(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Yim failed to demonstrate that his claim satisfied the elements for non-dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging fraudulent concealment to prove loss proximately caused by the fraud, even when reliance is presumed.

Hillsman v. Escoto (In Re Escoto) · filed 2018-02-27(a)(2)(A)

However, the presumption of reliance does not obviate the need to prove loss proximately caused by the fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive for claims based on false representations, false pretenses, or actual fraud.

Allen v. Freund · filed 2018-03-12(a)(2)(A)

Allen points to no evidence other than his own unsubstantiated assertions that Freund harbored any intent to defraud him. “Scienter, or intent to deceive,” is a “required element under § 523(a)(2)(A) whether the claim is for a false representation, false pretenses, or actual fraud.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a Social Security overpayment from discharge when a debtor's knowing failure to report work deceives the agency, which relies on the omission and suffers a loss.

United States ex rel. Soc. Sec. Admin. v. Evans (In re Evans) · filed 2018-03-12(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that Debtor's conduct, through Debtor's omissions, demonstrated intent to deceive the SSA into providing benefits for which Debtor was not entitled. ... By separate Order, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted and the debt owed by Debtor to the SSA in the amount of $35,567. 69 will be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor's false pretenses or false representations induce justifiable reliance.

Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Fakhuri (In re Fakhuri) · filed 2018-05-08(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the facts presented satisfy all of the elements required for nondischargeability pursuant to the false pretenses and false representation prongs of § 523(a)(2)(A). Therefore, the motion for summary judgment as to Count I will be granted in Old Republic's favor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a misrepresentation by the debtor and reliance by the creditor.

Misik v. D'Arco (In re D'Arco) · filed 2018-05-10(a)(2)(A)

As to the misrepresentation portion of these claims, both D'Arco and Misik testified that they did not speak with each other before Misik gave the loan money to Ballardo; from this evidence, the bankruptcy court appropriately concluded that D'Arco could not have misrepresented anything to Misik, and, further, that Misik did not rely on anything D'Arco said.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly receives and spends embezzled funds, committing actual fraud without making a false representation.

Mid-S. Maint., Inc. v. Burk (In re Burk) · filed 2018-03-22(a)(2)(A)

Jessica and Stephen's debt to Mid-South is nondischargeable under the actual fraud portion of § 523(a)(2)(A). ... By knowingly receiving stolen funds and then spending that money, Jessica and Stephen committed actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a false representation to establish actual fraud when a transfer scheme is designed to hinder debt collection.

Higgs v. Colliau · filed 2018-04-27(a)(2)(A)

Proof of actual fraud does not require a false representation if there was a transfer scheme designed to hinder the collection of debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual fraud before a debt imposed through piercing the corporate veil is excepted from discharge.

Trustmark Nat'l Bank v. Tegeler (In re Tegeler) · filed 2018-06-08(a)(2)(A)

However, merely piercing the corporate veil to establish personal liability on the Debtors for the $256,716.54 Debt does not automatically mean that this debt is a nondischargeable obligation under § 523(a)(2)(A). Trustmark must still satisfy the elements of this particular Code provision to prevent the Debtors from obtaining a discharge of the $256,716.54 Debt.

Section 523(a)(2) covers debts for actual fraud under a fraudulent transfer theory.

GMBH v. Aroney (In re Aroney) · filed 2018-06-11(a)(2)

For the foregoing reasons, as a discovery sanction the court will treat as established in this proceeding that the debt of Mr. Aroney to Garmin described in the Amended Complaint is one for actual fraud within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), under a fraudulent transfer theory suggested by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1581, 194 L.Ed.2d 655 (2016).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits justifiable reliance to be presumed when a debtor conceals material facts.

Thomas v. Kenmark Ventures, LLC · filed 2018-03-23(a)(2)(A)

The element of justifiable reliance may be presumed where, as here, the fraud claim is based on the debtor’s concealment of material facts.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent intent for a false representation claim; gross recklessness cannot substitute for that intent.

Creditors v. Lile · filed 2018-03-23(a)(2)(A)

Having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not err by ruling that gross recklessness is not the standard (or a substitute) for fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to obtain a benefit through actual fraud, but the benefit need not come from the creditor.

O'Brien v. Montoya (In re Torres-Montoya) · filed 2018-05-04(a)(2)(A)

Thus, despite the scattered, uncertain case law, the Court reiterates its holding that "receipt of benefits" is a necessary element of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim. ... Given Cohen's decoupling of "debts" from "money ... obtained by ... actual fraud," there is nothing in the statute requiring that the money obtained by the fraud come from the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s knowing false representation induces justifiable reliance that proximately causes the creditor’s loss.

Humberto Saenz, Jr. v. Gomez · filed 2018-08-07(a)(2)(A)

A review of the record confirms the bankruptcy court’s finding that Appellants’ actions satisfy the elements of Texas common law fraud and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). We cannot say the bankruptcy court clearly erred in rendering its non-dischargeable judgment or that the district court erred in affirming the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging fraud to prove justifiable reliance on the debtor's representation.

Batanado v. Clark (In re Clark) · filed 2018-09-06(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof on the element of justifiable reliance. Having failed to prove an essential element of his claim, the Court is compelled to enter judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a contractor's debt nondischargeable when he knowingly misrepresents his qualifications and contractual obligations with intent to deceive the creditor.

Coluccio v. Sevastakis (In re Sevastakis) · filed 2018-09-26(a)(2)(A)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Debtor knowingly misrepresented his qualifications and obligations under the contract with the intent to deceive Plaintiffs. Debtor's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied, Plaintiffs' motion is granted, and the debt owed to Plaintiffs in the amount of $761,927.00 is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor cashes worthless checks with an actual, subjective intent not to repay.

CoVantage Credit Union v. Stangel (In re Stangel) · filed 2018-10-10(a)(2)(A)

Based on the evidence submitted, the Court concludes that CoVantage has proven a prima facie case of "actual fraud" under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2)(A), and that it has suffered actual damages of $2,400 as a result.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging false representation to plead that the debtor knew it was false when made.

Pa. Emps. Benefit Trust Fund v. Brown (In re Brown) · filed 2018-10-11(a)(2)(A)

To prevail in a § 523(a)(2)(A) action, a creditor must prove each of the following: (1) the debtor made a false representation; (2) the debtor knew the representation was false when it was made ; (3) the debtor intended to deceive the creditor or to induce him to act upon the representation; (4) the creditor justifiably relied upon the representation; and, (5) the creditor sustained a loss as a proximate result of the representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers money obtained through false pretenses, including an implied false representation that a creditor’s payments will be used for a specific project.

Stewart v. Stewart · filed 2018-11-01(a)(2)(A)

We conclude that even if Stewart did not explicitly represent he would apply the DeWitts' monies exclusively to their project, the record, viewed as a whole, supports a conclusion that he impliedly made such false representations. The bankruptcy court committed clear error when: (1) it did not analyze whether Stewart obtained the DeWitts' money through false pretenses; and (2) it did not find that the DeWitts proved that Stewart obtained their money through false pretenses.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt caused by a knowingly false representation on which the creditor justifiably relied.

McKinzie v. Kaut (In re Kaut) · filed 2019-01-14(a)(2)(A)

The debt, as determined by this court, is nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for a false representation to prove justified reliance and a resulting loss.

Madsen v. Micah Chad Easterling (In re Micah Chad Easterling) · filed 2019-02-08(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Defendants made a false representation upon which the Plaintiffs justifiably relied as a result of which the Plaintiffs sustained a loss for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a nondischargeability claim based on false pretenses when the debtor allegedly misleads customers into paying her instead of the creditor.

R & R Express, Inc. v. Cawthon (In re Cawthon) · filed 2018-12-06(a)(2)(A)

Because the Amended Complaint contains facts sufficient to allege actions by the Defendant that would constitutes false pretenses, the Court concludes Plaintiff has stated a claim pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because a debtor later fails to perform a contractual promise; the creditor must prove fraud.

Recanati v. Roberts (In re Roberts) · filed 2018-12-20(a)(2)(A)

The fact that she was unable to secure financing thereafter may place her in breach of the contract, but it does not evidence any fraud on her part. Because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the first element of fraud, the Court will not address the remaining elements, and, any requested relief pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) must be denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor’s reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation to be justifiable, not reasonable.

In re: Laura Kay James and Jake Guillermo James · filed 2019-01-31(a)(2)(A)

But that is not the right legal standard. “[A] creditor’s reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation need be only justifiable, not reasonable,” for § 523(a)(2)(A) purposes.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for unemployment benefits nondischargeable when the debtor obtains them through knowingly false representations on which the agency justifiably relies.

State of Kansas, ex rel. Lana Gordon, Secretary of v. Bailey · filed 2019-05-17(a)(2)(A)

Overall, the court holds that KDOL has established its claim against Ms. Bailey is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation; reliance ceases to be justified when the creditor has evidence showing the representation is false.

Mich. Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Heinisch (In re Heinisch) · filed 2019-03-27(a)(2)(A)

The Agency justifiably relied on these misrepresentations until September 28, 2012, when it was provided with documentation clearly demonstrating their falsity. After September 28, 2012, the falsity of the Debtor's statements should have been evident to the Agency, and its reliance on the Debtor's misrepresentations was no longer justified.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on silence about a perceived business slowdown without proof of intent to deceive.

Itria Ventures LLC v. Chadha (In re Chadha) · filed 2019-03-30(a)(2)(A)

As a result, Itria has not established that the Debtor intended to deceive it by waiting until January of 2017 to disclose his observations about the economic conditions of the Mall and the Restaurants. Consequently, the Economic Downturn Allegation cannot form the basis for a § 523(a)(2)(A) exception.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not cover noncompensatory regulatory penalties merely because the debtor's conduct is described as fraudulent; the debt must arise from money, property, or services obtained by fraud.

In re Technologies · filed 2019-04-30(a)(2)(A)

However, these attenuated allegations do not satisfy § 523(a)(2)(A)'s requirement for establishing that Exide fraudulently obtained money, property or services.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains a credit renewal through false representations and commits actual fraud by diverting the creditor’s collateral.

Frost Bank v. Lawrence · filed 2019-07-03(a)(2)(A)

Looking to the evidence presented, the court ultimately concludes that the debt owed to Frost Bank fits under false representations and actual fraud, and that the entire amount owed by Mr. Lawrence to Frost Bank should be deemed nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a guaranteed loan debt nondischargeable when the creditor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor obtained the loan through false representations or false pretenses.

DMM Grp., Inc. v. Hanna (In re Hanna) · filed 2019-07-19(a)(2)(A)

DMM has introduced ample evidence necessary to prove false pretenses and false representations under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) ; stated differently, DMM has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge the portion of a debt caused by a debtor’s intentionally false representation on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Takuski v. Kurtz · filed 2019-08-12(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons stated above, the Takuskis satisfied their burden of proving that the sum of $5,916.50 is excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A) based on Debtor's false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a misrepresentation of fact; sincere statements of opinion, expectation, or intention do not suffice.

Li v. Chu · filed 2019-08-29(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that Defendants made a misrepresentation of fact. Accordingly, the Court finds and concludes that it must grant judgment in Defendants favor on Plaintiff’s cause of action for non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt caused by a knowingly false representation on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Saltzman v. Russell · filed 2019-09-10(a)(2)(A)

Here, the plaintiffs have established each element of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except attorney’s fees from discharge only if they were incurred as a result of the alleged false statement; fees already owed before the statement cannot qualify.

Labbadia, III v. Martin · filed 2019-08-02(a)(2)(A)

Here, the “substantial amount” of attorney’s fees that Martin owed Labbadia prior to trial in the divorce case could not have been obtained as a result of a false statement made after the amount became due. See, Rieder, 116 F.3d 465 (2d Cir. 1997). On the other hand, any attorney’s fees incurred after the alleged false statement could have been the result of the alleged statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires reliance on a fraudulent misrepresentation to be a substantial factor in causing the loss.

Straight Line, L.L.C. v. Madigan · filed 2019-08-19(a)(2)(A)

In sum, appellants established that their reliance on Madigan’s fraudulent misrepresentations was a substantial factor in determining their inaction to curtail lending and repossess vehicles, which resulted in the loss, and Bankruptcy Court’s contrary finding is clear error.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge for false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud only when the creditor proves the debtor’s conduct fits the exception.

Azalea City Credit Union v. Cochran · filed 2019-08-28(a)(2)(A)

Having considered the evidence in relation to the law set out above, the Court finds that ACCU failed to meet its burden of proof on any of the types of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge for false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud when the creditor proves the debtor's fraudulent conduct.

Mark Lee Cochran · filed 2019-08-28(a)(2)(A)

Having considered the evidence in relation to the law set out above, the Court finds that ACCU failed to meet its burden of proof on any of the types of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a discharge exception based on a misrepresentation about employment status because that statement does not concern the debtor’s financial condition.

State of Maryland Central Collection Unit v. Johnson, Jr. · filed 2019-08-30(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Lamar supports the conclusion that a misrepresentation concerning employment status is not one respecting a debtor’s financial condition and can provide the basis for a claim under §523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains it through false representations or false pretenses on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Beshears v. McCool · filed 2019-09-30(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, based on the false representations just discussed, the Court finds and concludes that Beshears satisfied her burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to prove that the April 26, 2008 debt was obtained through false representations and false pretenses and Beshears’s reliance on McCool’s false representations and false pretenses was justified.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a statement about future use of funds as a false representation or false pretense.

Simmons v. Bohanna, Jr. · filed 2019-11-15(a)(2)(A)

Because any representation by the Defendant regarding his future use of any funds which the Plaintiff might choose to supply, or any of Plaintiff’s expectations arising therefrom, pertained to a future event, any such statement cannot be properly characterized as a false representation or a false pretense in this Circuit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from fraud from discharge, but professional negligence alone does not qualify.

Aluisi v. Jorgensen · filed 2019-12-10(a)(2)(A)

Professional negligence alone will not support a claim of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains credit through a fraudulent representation, including a promise the debtor never intended to keep.

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. dba GM Financ v. Mattox · filed 2019-12-20(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has therefore established the Defendant incurred a debt that is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) makes benefit overpayments nondischargeable when a debtor conceals income through required disclosures after an application or through materially false written applications made with intent to deceive.

State of Oregon, Department of Human Services v. Alshemary · filed 2020-01-03(a)(2)

Because the entirety of the department’s claim is on Alshemary’s failure to make disclosures either in an application or after an application when his income had changed, the claim is nondischargeable under either section 523(a)(2)(A) or (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a contract debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor failed to perform; false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud must be established.

Hinton v. Blocker · filed 2020-01-15(a)(2)(A)

The Blockers’ failure to perform under those contracts, no matter how just the debt may be, without more, likewise fails to establish false representation, false pretenses, or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for money obtained through a false representation on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Cyrnek v. Oliva · filed 2020-02-25(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the $191,000 that Defendant still owes Plaintiff under the Note is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains an extension of credit through a knowingly false representation intended to deceive a creditor who justifiably relies on it and suffers a loss.

Patak v. Jones · filed 2020-04-01(a)(2)(A)

To prevail on a claim of false pretense or false representation, the claimant must show she sustained damage because the debtor knowingly made a false representation, on which the claimant justifiably relied, with the intent and purpose of deceiving the claimant.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a construction debt from discharge for poor work alone; the creditor must prove a knowingly or grossly recklessly false representation made with intent to deceive.

Ott v. Somogye · filed 2020-03-30(a)(2)(A)

The court finds Plaintiffs have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the state court judgment debt Somogye owes them is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming fraud by omission to plausibly allege a material, intentional omission, a duty to disclose, reliance, and harm.

White v. Cyr · filed 2020-04-02(a)(2)(A)

Because White’s amended complaint only alludes to information Cyr may have omitted, White’s allegations of fraud by omission fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through intentional false representations on which the creditor justifiably relies, causing a loss.

Kapitus Servicing, Inc, formerly Colonial Funding v. Nikirk · filed 2020-04-03(a)(2)(A)

Based on the record, Plaintiff has met its burden of proving that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law against Defendants in the amount of $264,850.89, plus attorneys’ fees incurred since January 15, 2020, and, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the judgment is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a creditor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor obtained payments through intentional false representations on which the creditor justifiably relied and suffered damages.

Duffie v. Gotcher · filed 2020-04-16(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court properly granted appellees an exception from Duffiè’s bankruptcy discharge because appellees demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Duffiè intentionally made false representations to obtain their agreement to make monetary payments to Duffiè; the appellees justifiably relied on those misrepresentations and made such payments; and they sustained damages as a result.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained through intentional false representations from discharge when the creditor proves justifiable reliance and resulting damages by a preponderance of the evidence.

Gotcher v. DUFFIE · filed 2020-04-17(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court properly granted appellees an exception from Duffiè’s bankruptcy discharge because appellees demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Duffiè intentionally made false representations to obtain their agreement to make monetary payments to Duffiè; the appellees justifiably relied on those misrepresentations and made such payments; and they sustained damages as a result.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains it through intentional misrepresentations on which the creditor justifiably relies and suffers a loss.

CreditBox.com, L.L.C. v. Perez · filed 2020-04-28(a)(2)(A)

To obtain a determination under section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code that a debt is non- dischargeable, the plaintiff must show that (a) the defendant made representations to the plaintiff, (b) the defendant knew the representations were false, (c) the defendant made the misrepresentations with the intention of deceiving the plaintiff, (d) the plaintiff justifiably relied on such representations and (e) the plaintiff sustained a loss as the proximate result of the defendant’s conduct.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debt arising from a credit extension obtained through false representations or pretenses, including material omissions.

Kroesen v. Wernes · filed 2020-05-01(a)(2)(A)

The court therefore finds and concludes that Ms. Wernes has met her burden of proving that $17,703.62 is nondischargeable pursuant to §523(a)(2)(A).

A fraudulent inducement claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) must be based on conduct at contract formation; later conduct cannot prove inducement.

Daily v. Garrett · filed 2020-04-06(a)(2)(A)

The Dailys’ counsel confirmed during the bankruptcy hearing that the Dailys’ claim was limited to fraudulent inducement, which may not be proved based on events subsequent to contract formation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt from a breached contract nondischargeable unless the debtor intended not to perform when the contract was made.

Williams v. Adetayo · filed 2020-05-05(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, as stated above, a breach of contract (here the failure to provide the venue) is only nondischargeable if the debtor had no intention of performing the contract at the time it was made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a debtor’s knowing false representation on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Clay v. Whitten · filed 2020-07-10(a)(2)(A)

In summary, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Defendant made false representations pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) that render the State Court Final Judgments nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor promised to pay and later failed to do so.

Labbadia, III v. Martin · filed 2020-05-28(a)(2)(A)

By itself, the defendant’s promise to pay the plaintiff and the later failure to do so is insufficient for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers a false promise to pay only if the debtor made it with no intention of keeping it.

Schiller DuCanto& Fleck, LLP v. Potter · filed 2020-07-06(a)(2)(A)

A false promise can support a section 523(a)(2)(A) claim only “if the debtor made the promise with no intention of keeping it.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt nondischargeable when a material omission constitutes fraud.

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom v. Howell · filed 2020-06-29(a)(2)(A)

So, while an omission of material information can be sufficient under certain circumstances to serve as the basis for a fraud claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) (as the Court finds is the case here), a “statement” or other actionable communication under § 523(a)(2)(B) would appear to require, at a minimum, some affirmative indication of denial in response to an inquiry by a plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor’s deceptive representation causes a creditor to suffer a loss after justifiable reliance.

Newcom v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission · filed 2020-07-16(a)(2)(A)

Again, to establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), CFTC must show: (1) the debtor made a false representation to deceive the creditor, (2) the creditor relied on the misrepresentation, (3) the reliance was justified, and (4) the creditor sustained a loss as a result of the misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt based on a promise of future performance nondischargeable only if the debtor did not intend to perform when the promise was made.

Rosenberg Ventures, Inc. d/b/a AJ Construction v. Velasco, Jr. · filed 2020-07-28(a)(2)(A)

A § 523(a)(2) claim based on a promise of future performance arises only when a creditor can prove that the debtor did not intend to perform at the time he made the promise.

A debtor’s failure to disclose material facts when a familial and fiduciary relationship creates a duty to disclose can constitute a fraudulent omission under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Dutton v. Fisher · filed 2020-07-31(a)(2)(A)

Due to their familial and fiduciary relationship, Evelyn and John had “a duty to disclose their intention” to treat the money as an irrevocable gift “to the Fishers.” ... They did not. The Duttons’ “failure to disclose material facts” thus constituted “a fraudulent omission” under the statute. ... Appellants do not seriously grapple with the Bankruptcy Court’s fraudulent omission analysis with which the Court finds no clear error.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of deceptive intent and creditor reliance to except a debt based on false representations from discharge.

Fairlane Fixed Income Fund, LLC v. Feigl · filed 2020-09-25(a)(2)(A)

However, the Plaintiff has not proven (i) the Defendant made the representations with the intent to deceive or (ii) the Plaintiff relied on the representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) may cover a promise to pay made without any intention of keeping it, but a promise to pay alone is insufficient.

Handler v. Moore · filed 2020-09-02(a)(2)(A)

Thus, while a promise to pay alone, in and of itself, is not actionable, statements regarding resources to repay may be and promises made without the intention of ever keeping them may also suffice.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge only when the debtor obtained money or credit through the alleged fraud or misrepresentation.

Darienzo v. Barretto · filed 2020-10-16(a)(2)(A)

Mr. Barretto did not receive any money or credit based on those misrepresentations. Accordingly, any liability arising from the May 2017 agreement is not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a writing, so the debtor’s lack of a signature does not by itself defeat a fraud claim.

Krizan v. Krizan · filed 2020-10-16(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a writing. So the lack of a signature by Defendant is not dispositive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor promises to pay without intending to do so or knowing payment is impossible.

Swift Financial, LLC fka Swift Financial Corporati v. Cohen · filed 2020-12-07(a)(2)(A)

A debtor’s promise while not intending to ... pay or knowing that payment would be impossible is actionable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a promise about future performance as a false representation or false pretense in the Fifth Circuit.

Parkin v. Jamieson · filed 2021-02-08(a)(2)(A)

Because any representation by the Defendant on behalf of his company regarding the future construction and delivery of the automated safety hitch, or either Plaintiff’s expectations arising therefrom, pertained to a future event, any such statement cannot be properly characterized as a false representation or a false pretense in this Circuit.

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), silence can be a false representation when the debtor has an obligation to disclose the information.

Kelley v. Lynds · filed 2021-02-11(a)(2)(A)

Simple silence, a failure to disclose, can amount to a false representation that there is nothing to disclose when it is made in the face of an obligation to disclose, but here Kelley has adduced no evidence that the Debtor was asked to disclose any significant obligations he then faced, or that the Debtor was otherwise under an obligation to disclose the existence of his tax debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor challenging a debtor’s promise of future performance to prove the debtor lacked the intent to perform when making it.

PRN Real Estate & Investments, Ltd. v. Cole, Jr · filed 2021-03-01(a)(2)(A)

To raise a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim based on a debtor’s failure to perform a promise, a creditor must show that the debtor lacked the subjective intent to perform the promise when the promise was made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor to seek an exception to discharge for a debt arising from a debtor’s concealment of self-employment status when applying for public benefits.

State of Oregon, Department of Human Services v. Hutchins · filed 2021-03-23(a)(2)(A)

I hold that the two cases cited by the Supreme Court are directly analogous to the State’s allegations concerning Ms. Hutchins’s concealment of her self-employment, and thus Appling does not prevent the State from using § 523(a)(2)(A) to challenge Ms. Hutchins’s failure to disclose the fact that she was self-employed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because a contractor breached a construction contract.

Signal Asset Management, LLC v. Rodriguez · filed 2021-03-30(a)(2)(A)

While the Defendant failed to obtain certain permits and the certificate of occupancy as required by the Contract, mere breach of a construction contract does not establish false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts arising from false representations, false pretenses, or actual fraud.

DEMORY v. Martin · filed 2021-04-27(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that Martin’s statements and conduct qualify as false representations, false pretenses, and actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, the debt arising from the Default Judgment is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor knowingly makes a false representation with intent to deceive, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and that reliance causes a loss.

McAllen v. Amberson · filed 2021-05-07(a)(2)(A)

Because the finding of fraud on the False Litigation Expenses in the Award meets the prima facie elements for § 523(a)(2)(A), and because the Award contains extensive factual findings to support a claim for fraud, the Court finds the False Litigation Expenses of $2,583,700.00 in actual damages and $1,100,000.00 in pre- judgment interest are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly makes a false representation to deceive a creditor, who relies on it and suffers a resulting loss.

Irone v. Mohammed · filed 2021-06-09(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has satisfied all the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). In June of 2018, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that he would cooperate with her in organizing an event at the Saban Theater, and that Plaintiff would be entitled to 10% of the ticket proceeds of the event. Defendant’s representation was false, since at the time Defendant made the representation he intended to divert ticketholders to his own competing event at a different venue. Defendant made these false representations for the purpose of deceiving Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a debt obtained through a false representation to be excepted from discharge when the creditor plausibly alleges deception, reliance, and resulting loss.

Sun Federal Credit Union v. Montague · filed 2021-07-06(a)(2)(A)

It sets forth a plausible false misrepresentation claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt nondischargeable when a debtor with a duty to disclose material information remains silent to induce a creditor’s payment.

Krizan v. Krizan · filed 2021-07-15(a)(2)(A)

Thus, Beverly’s continued silence constitutes a false representation or omission.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a loan debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor failed to repay it.

Krizan v. Krizan · filed 2021-07-15(a)(2)(A)

The failure to repay a loan is not a false representation or pretense.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when intentional misrepresentations induce a creditor to lend money, the creditor justifiably relies on them, and the creditor suffers a loss.

BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Richert · filed 2021-07-21(a)(2)(A)

BMO has proven the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained through false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud from discharge.

Verkon v. Ollis · filed 2021-08-04(a)(2)(A)

Applying applicable law to the facts of this case, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the debts owed to them by Ollis should be excepted from his discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) because they were based on Ollis’ false pretenses and false representations and because Ollis committed actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts from discharge when the debtor obtains money through false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

Arguedas v. Ollis · filed 2021-08-04(a)(2)(A)

Applying applicable law to the facts of this case, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the debts owed to them by Ollis should be excepted from his discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) because they were based on Ollis’ false pretenses and false representations and because Ollis committed actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts for money obtained through false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

Thompson v. Ollis · filed 2021-08-04(a)(2)(A)

Applying applicable law to the facts of this case, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the debts owed to them by Ollis should be excepted from his discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) because they were based on Ollis’ false pretenses and false representations and because Ollis committed actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts for money obtained through false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud from discharge.

Chapman v. Ollis · filed 2021-08-04(a)(2)(A)

Applying applicable law to the facts of this case, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the debts owed to them by Ollis should be excepted from his discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) because they were based on Ollis’ false pretenses and false representations and because Ollis committed actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraudulent representations to prove fraudulent intent and justifiable reliance.

Reticulum Management, LLC v. Watters · filed 2021-08-24(a)(2)(A)

In conclusion, the Court has carefully weighed the evidence, including the credibility determinations detailed above, and concludes that the Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proof on both fraudulent intent and justifiable reliance. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to show that its debt held by the Debtor is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a settlement debt from discharge when the debtor induced the settlement by falsely promising to pay and the creditor justifiably relied on that promise.

Thomas v. Roberson · filed 2021-09-10(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the Court concludes that the obligation owed to the Plaintiffs is excepted from the Debtor’s discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt arising from materially misleading property disclosures from discharge, even when the buyer arranged a home inspection.

Jordan v. Pritchard · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)(A)

Nonetheless, the Jordans plausibly could have been materially misled, in a way that created actual damages, by assertions and omissions in a disclosure form required under state law. ... Under these circumstances, the Court denies Pritchard’s motion to dismiss Count III.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a judgment debt from discharge in full, including awarded interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, when the money underlying the judgment was obtained by a false representation.

Weiss v. Fautz · filed 2022-01-10(a)(2)(A)

The full amount of that judgment, including the interest, costs, and attorney’s fees awarded therein, constitutes a debt for money obtained by a false representation and accordingly is excepted by § 523(a)(2)(A) from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when false pretenses or a false representation induce a creditor to turn over money or property.

Reyes v. Ranciato · filed 2022-02-08(a)(2)(A)

Ms. Reyes is entitled to a default judgment finding her claim for false pretenses and false representation is non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) because she established the four factors for such a claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not cover allegations limited to how a debtor completed bankruptcy schedules; the complaint must identify actionable conduct concerning the underlying transaction.

Ceruti v. Woodhouse · filed 2022-03-03(a)(2)(A)

In other words, the complaint was concerned with how ... Woodhouse filled out her schedules when she filed bankruptcy in 2015, not with any conduct actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A) regarding the condominium transaction years prior.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor omits a material fact with reckless disregard for the truth and the creditor justifiably relies and suffers resulting damages.

Ives v. Lyon · filed 2022-03-31(a)(2)(A)

In the alternative, a creditor may prove that a debtor failed to disclose a material fact when the debtor was under a duty to disclose such fact, and the omission was made with an intent to deceive or a reckless disregard for the truth. ... Based on the evidence received, and under the law as described in this memorandum, I find both the Arbitration Award and the Supplemental Arbitration Award against Defendants to be nondischargeable under §523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly misrepresents the intended use of borrowed funds and the lender justifiably relies.

Velocity Capital Group, LLC v. Trapp · filed 2022-05-05(a)(2)(A)

The representations were of present facts—the use of the money—and not mere promises. The representations were untrue. Trapp knew the stated uses were false. ... The debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan debt from discharge when borrowers falsely represent their involvement in managing the business and the lender relies on that representation.

Texas Capital Bank N.A. v. Womack · filed 2022-07-08(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) due to the Womacks’ false representations and false pretenses.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts the debtor’s unemployment-benefit debt from discharge.

Georgia Department of Labor v. Abney-Ancrum · filed 2022-07-25(a)(2)(A)

The debt owed by the Debtor is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the debtor’s unemployment-benefit debt from discharge.

Illinois Department of Employment Security v. Taylor · filed 2022-08-01(a)(2)(A)

The debt owed to IDES will be excepted from the Debtor’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require proof of a misrepresentation and actual reliance to except a debt from discharge.

Barclay Breland Family Office, LLC v. Albertsson · filed 2022-07-12(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

The plaintiff failed to carry its burden on each of its theories for relief under sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraud that induced the creditor to advance money or property and caused the creditor damages.

Han v. Cho · filed 2022-07-15(a)(2)(A)

Thus, to render a debt nondischargeable, the alleged fraud must have induced the plaintiff to make the extension of credit, money, services, or other property and that fraud must have caused the plaintiff to suffer damages.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging fraudulent misrepresentation to prove actual and justifiable reliance on the debtor’s statements.

White v. Davidson · filed 2022-09-12(a)(2)(A)

With respect to the fraudulent misrepresentation claims embodied in Count I under § 523(a)(2)(A), White must also demonstrate that he actually relied on Davidson’s statements and that the reliance was justifiable.

A false representation claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false statement by the debtor; a third party’s statement does not satisfy that requirement.

Brennan v. Hall · filed 2022-09-23(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the defendant make the false representation, and so Spencer’s remarks to Plaintiff are immaterial.

A materially false written financial statement under § 523(a)(2)(B) can consist of an omission.

Capozzolo v. AKF, Inc. · filed 2022-09-08(a)(2)(B)

This Court therefore finds no error in Judge Bucki’s determination that Capozzolo made a material misrepresentation by omission.

The creditor did not prove the elements needed to except the judgment from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Moyer v. Guitton-Belon · filed 2022-12-01(a)(2)(A)

Because Cale failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A), Cale did not satisfy his burden to except his judgment from Jeremy’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor’s knowing false representations cause a creditor to rely on them to its financial detriment.

Eletech, Inc v. Jones · filed 2022-12-07(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the state court’s finding of liability against Jones on Eletech’s claim is sufficient to except the debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor’s nondischargeability claim to proceed when the complaint plausibly alleges misrepresentations connected to the debt.

Parr v. Rassbach · filed 2023-03-13(a)(2)(A)

For this reason, the claim under section 523(a)(2)(A) survives Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

A creditor who fails to prove the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) cannot except the debt from discharge.

Vandevender, Sr. v. Vandevender · filed 2023-03-27(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of proof to prevail on a claim of nondischargeability pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained through false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud from discharge.

Womack v. Texas Capital Bank N.A. · filed 2023-07-07(a)(2)(A)

The Court, therefore, AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that the debt owed by the Womacks to Texas Capital Bank is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

A debt based on deceptive representations is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) when the creditor proves the exception.

Gabbert v. Stevens · filed 2023-07-21(a)(2)(A)

Defendant’s debt to Plaintiffs is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through fraudulent nonfinancial representations on which the creditor justifiably relies.

First Recovery, LLC v. Sanders · filed 2023-08-31(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the claim that the debt is non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant obtained money by making false and fraudulent representations other than a statement respecting its or an insider’s financial condition, and that Plaintiffs justifiably relied on those statements.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a contract debt from discharge without proof that the debtor’s false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud caused the debt.

Han v. Coutts · filed 2023-09-07(a)(2)(A)

For these reasons, the Court does not find the burden carried that the $1,878,363.17 debt for the unpaid Sellers’ Equity arising from the breach of the PSA and the Settlement Statement under Ohio law constitutes a debt of Debtor resulting from false pretenses and false representations as contemplated under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming fraud based on an unfulfilled promise to show that the debtor did not intend to perform when the promise was made.

Smithyman v. Crawford · filed 2023-09-27(a)(2)(A)

To raise a section 523(a)(2)(A) claim based on a debtor’s failure to perform a promise, a creditor must show that the debtor lacked the subjective intent to perform the promise when the promise was made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge for fraud when the creditor fails to establish that the debtor committed fraud or was partnered with those who did.

(BK) In Re Joseph H. Akins · filed 2023-11-28(a)(2)(A)

The Bankruptcy Court’s finding that Appellant had failed to meet his burden of establishing that the Debtor committed a fraud or misrepresentation or was in partnership with Tirpak and Sarganis who allegedly committed fraud is not clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s false representations induce a creditor to hire the debtor and proximately cause the creditor’s damages.

Wingenbach v. Gray · filed 2024-01-12(a)(2)(A)

The State Court Judgment, in its entirety, is therefore nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts arising from a fraudulent misrepresentation about the intended use of funds nondischargeable.

City Center Wichita Falls, LLC v. Harwell, Jr · filed 2024-01-29(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, Harwell’s request for the Condenser Draw qualifies as a “fraudulent misrepresentation” under § 523(a)(2)(A) and thus debts flowing from it are nondischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a misrepresentation of an existing fact; a promise to act in the future does not suffice.

Goodman v. Adair · filed 2024-03-18(a)(2)(A)

To support a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), a misrepresentation must be of an existing fact. A declaration of intention or promise to do something in the future does not suffice.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through false representations that cause the creditor loss.

State of New Hampshire Department of Employment Se v. Mulcahy · filed 2024-05-16(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the Court concludes that the Debtor’s $31,623.50 debt to NHES is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraud or a false representation to have caused the debtor to obtain the money; statements made after the final advance cannot satisfy that requirement.

Barklage v. Haas · filed 2024-05-31(a)(2)(A)

However, as is noted above, that paragraph begins by stating “[e]ven after the final draw was taken.” These allegations do not support the proposition that the Debtors “obtained” money through false representations or fraud because, by that point, the Debtors had already obtained the funds from the Creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a creditor proves an intentional false representation, justifiable reliance, and resulting damages.

SWIGER v. MANSFIELD · filed 2024-10-24(a)(2)(A)

In order to satisfy her claim on an exception to non-dischargeability, Ms. Mansfiled was required to show that: (1) the debtor made a false representation; (2) the debtor knew at the time that the representation was false; (3) the debtor made the misrepresentation with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (4) the creditor justifiably relied on the misrepresentation; and (5) the creditor sustained damages as a proximate result of the misrepresentation having been made. Corso v. Walker, 449 B.R. 838 (W.D.Pa. 2011). ... Further, the evidentiary record adequately supports the Bankruptcy Court’s legal conclusions that Ms. Mansfield’s claim is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a knowing misrepresentation to make a debt based on that alleged misrepresentation nondischargeable.

Defot-Sido v. Carr · filed 2024-08-14(a)(2)(A)

But the violation of count III, and the nondischargeability of count I, both require that Carr in fact made a knowing misrepresentation to Defot-Sido that he was a licensed contractor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) did not except the debt when the creditors failed to prove false pretenses or false representations.

Ketelhut v. Allen · filed 2025-01-28(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the Ketelhuts have not proven the necessary elements of false pretenses and representations to preclude discharge of their debt under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt obtained through false representations or false pretenses, including benefit overpayments caused by knowingly failing to report employment and income.

United States of America, SSA v. George · filed 2025-03-06(a)(2)(A)

For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the United States has met its burden of proving that Ms. George obtained a debt by false representations or false pretenses within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), and the United States’ motion for summary judgment will be granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan debt from discharge when the debtor obtained it through a false representation about its intended use and the creditor proves the required elements.

In Re Gustavo Jose Berrocal · filed 2025-03-18(a)(2)(A)

Specifically, the Court concludes that it is apparent from the testimony and evidence presented at the bench trial and by Berrocal’s own admissions that the five elements necessary to demonstrate a claim of non-dischargeability under Section 523(a)(2)(A) have been satisfied.